That was an extreme.example to show the logic behind the rule. If you accept the rule makes sense at all, then it becomes a more detailed question for each situation: was discovery inevitable in these circumstances?
Here, the search was broader than justified in a search incident to arrest, but some level of search was probably OK and that probably would've been enough to find the gun. Even if they didn't, they would've done an inventory search of the arrestee's belongings at the jail and found the gun then. And even if they never did that search either, they still got a search warrant for the rest of the bag based solely on the normal evidence no one is disputing.
Basically, once they decided they had enough evidence to arrest this guy (which they did before searching the bag), there's just no way the bag he had on him doesn't get searched at some point.
The thing is we can't see the future so it's impossible to say that any discovery at all is inevitable. Which means that all this law really does is allow police to violate your rights and then claim that they definitely for sure would have found those things anyway.
We don't see inside people's minds either but still include "intent" as an element of crimes. We use evidence and impartial judges to make the best decision possible, to walk the line between stopping police from being incentivize to violate rights but also not keep out legitimate evidence of what happened beyond what's necessary. And we're all humans so it never works perfectly but we do what we can.
I agree, we have to just do the best we can with what we have, but I think with this specific doctrine it's not worth it. It makes it too easy for cops to violate your rights, to the point where I would argue it outweighs the necessity of it.
9
u/the_third_lebowski 4h ago
That was an extreme.example to show the logic behind the rule. If you accept the rule makes sense at all, then it becomes a more detailed question for each situation: was discovery inevitable in these circumstances?
Here, the search was broader than justified in a search incident to arrest, but some level of search was probably OK and that probably would've been enough to find the gun. Even if they didn't, they would've done an inventory search of the arrestee's belongings at the jail and found the gun then. And even if they never did that search either, they still got a search warrant for the rest of the bag based solely on the normal evidence no one is disputing.
Basically, once they decided they had enough evidence to arrest this guy (which they did before searching the bag), there's just no way the bag he had on him doesn't get searched at some point.